Clocked Information Technoloy

Bandwidth availability is driving the way services work. It is only a matter of time to have two ways virtual unlimited bandwidth availability. What will be the impact of this? In short: more individual freedom! Exchanging bulk data (primarily multi media) today goes via a service middleman. Facebook, Instagram, Google, .... name them. The internet will get less server and server-center dominated. People will start use apps that communicate with their home rather than with a "public" platform. The impact will colossal.

We research and innovate in the area of human it system integration and call this humansys. We use no FaceBook related products because we consider Facebook unethical. We do twitter. But only to update people about new research developments or innovations. And because unfortunately Atom and RSS feeds have a poorly defined Mime. Internet is two things in our view. A means of transport private data; A means of publication. We will use this channel for publications related to our research.

The nice thing about email is that you can email someone with a gmail.com address from an outlook.com address. So you are not locked into gmail or outlook or amazon or ... any email service supplier. Very different from WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram. LinkedIn and so on. You are locked in into these apps and are only able to communicate with other app users. You can not chat with someone outside these closed environments. The ability to communicate from service to service is called federation. My advice to you all is to use only federating services. That way we keep the market open and prevent creepy monopolists from getting too much control over us.

Road traffic is fundamentally a group-process. A typical a human group process. In the end human (non verbal) communication and behaviour are the flexibility layer in the process. When rules or situations are unclear, this human to human process defines the system security. This allows the strange mix of pedestrians, bicycles, car's and lories to share the same space. For trains and other public transport this is less the case. These are primarily system rules based apparatus. People have to adapt to these rules. And are flexible enough to do so. And because people are aware of this, they do. Self driving cars never will become humans and thus in the end never will have the flexibility humans have. They in the end will behave more like trains than humans. Other humans will be unclear about the flexibility layer surrounding self-driving-cars. This is a risk area in the trust people will put into self-driving-cars. Driver assistance is obviously something else. So self-driving public...

If the whole of Northern-Ireland (NI) would be made into a free trade zone . It would: boost the Norther-Irish economy boost the Irish economy The UK can do this (declaring NI a Free trade zone) A consequence will be that the border around NI has to be made tight. As well the sea border as the land border with Ireland. But not because of the EU but because of Northern-Ireland her new special status.

If no bill is send, no tax can be claimed. And free services never are really free. This are the two reasons why free internet services should be forbidden. If one would be obliged to pay for a search engine, let say a minimum of the cost plus 10%, one probably would see a range of specialised search engines emerge beside Google. Facebook would have all kind of local competitors, and so on. Local governments would get an honest share of the pie. Privacy would no longer be an issue, because one doesn't need to pay with privacy for a service that claims to be free. Why governments don't stop the illusion of free services, and really do something about privacy and forbid free services?

I love models. Yes, metoo ... But I'm talking about algorithms here. Those who are a bit into mathematics know that with a little curve fitting you can go all the way. Lets aside Fourier. If you do not understand this, then I advise you to look at this Homer (Simpson) orbit example: Maybe now you understand that a climate model can be made for any outcome. And then you also understand that it is wise to let the value of a model depend on any proof of the correctness of a model by testing it against measurements. The models of the club of Rome, for example, have not (yet) come true while they already beat the already known dates. Is this bad? Not at all. We do not learn much without modeling and testing. I do have a problem with the way the press deals with modeling. They publish a scientific research as fact or almost fact at the moment that it offers sensational outcomes. Again something like that today! 'Coming four years will be unusually warm' Fortunately, the text does...